Timeline for Why did these extremely broad Not Constructive and NARQ questions get reopened?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://pm.stackexchange.com/ with https://pm.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Jul 22, 2012 at 21:53 | comment | added | Mark Phillips Mod | I think we've honed in on the underlying intent of the pm.stackexchange.com/questions/6195/dos-and-donts-with-clients question. Based on the asker's satisfaction with Zsolt's answer, it seems more like a site FAQ type question then a PM specific question. It has been edited as such and migrated to meta. | |
| Jul 22, 2012 at 0:39 | history | rollback | jmort253Mod | Rollback to Revision 3 | |
| Jul 22, 2012 at 0:24 | history | edited | jmort253Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | edited my post to focus on the Do's and Don'ts |
| Jul 21, 2012 at 23:51 | history | edited | jmort253Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Strike out the part about there being no community support for the 2nd question reopen. Thomas Owens and Mark Phillips both reopened the question. |
| Jul 21, 2012 at 2:05 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | @MarkPhillips - I just looked at the Do's and Don't's question again after editing it. It was never answered. Zsolt pasted a link to the customer tagged questions on our site, which is of course helpful and a good thing to do, but links by themselves are not Stack Exchange answers..... Sorry for all the comment spam :) | |
| Jul 21, 2012 at 1:55 | history | edited | jmort253Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added point about using downvotes on meta |
| Jul 21, 2012 at 1:05 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | @MarkPhillips and CodeGnome - With that said, I do think it's acceptable at this point to make some exceptions for exceptional questions that have been edited by community members (or moderators), but that should be the exception, not the rule. If nothing else, someone should at least fix all the grammar issues on that Do's and Don't's question so at least it looks like someone tried to make it better. (I'll prob do that after I eat dinner if someone doesn't beat me to it first) :) :) | |
| Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | @CodeGnome - Stack Exchange was designed to be a resource of knowledge not just for askers but future visitors as well. After 16-17 months of the "anything goes approach", that just hasn't attracted a large pool of passionate users. One of the Stack Exchange community managers, Shog9, mentioned that the team was a bit concerned about the quality of the questions and answers on the site. This was before the scope change and we are definitely doing better!!. However, we should all understand that going back to the old ways of anything goes may not be good for the site in the long run. | |
| Jul 20, 2012 at 22:07 | answer | added | Todd A. JacobsMod | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 20, 2012 at 21:30 | comment | added | Todd A. Jacobs Mod | @jmort253 Not a full answer, just a quick thought: without commenting on these specific questions, until the new question volume is higher, keeping iffy questions open (not dreck, just iffy) seems like a sensible way to encourage engagement. I'll ponder a more complete answer that balances both sides. | |
| Jul 20, 2012 at 21:21 | comment | added | Todd A. Jacobs Mod | @MarkPhillips Quoting Jeff, "[E]ven hideously bad questions get good answers on Stack Overflow. Our incentive systems are almost too effective." meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93595/… Note that doesn't mean I agree or disagree; I'm just pointing out that good answers don't necessarily indicate that the parent question is valid or on-topic. | |
| Jul 20, 2012 at 20:53 | comment | added | Mark Phillips Mod | Do's and Dont's with Clients was reopened since the questioner seemed to find a satisfactory answer (based on their comments) and therefore, it was a useful interaction on the site. The features question... perhaps a little overzealous in seeing if the community can provide value even if it doesn't strictly fit our evolving guidelines. | |
| Jul 20, 2012 at 20:29 | history | asked | jmort253Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |